Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

An IoT sensor and scenario survey for data researchers

Contributed equally
Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society201925:4

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-019-0085-7

  • Received: 3 August 2017
  • Accepted: 27 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

This work surveys Internet of Things (IoT) experimental research published since 2015. We summarize the IoT state of the art during the last 2 years and extract important data that we apply to enhance the analysis of IoT solutions. The IoT scenario presents a promising universe to data analysis. This raises a number of questions: which are its most popular applications? What is the definition of scale in an IoT application? What sensors are more often used and for what IoT applications? How can a researcher compare IoT scenarios? To investigate these concerns, this survey analyzes 2 years’ worth of contributions made in three main scientific publishers. We focus on IoT experiments that were actually implemented using real equipment within one or more scenarios. Our first contribution is the classification of those IoT scenarios into seven main aspects. Each analyzed research study presents a specific configuration of a scenario’s variables and sensors. Our second main contribution takes place after the scenario mapping phase. We identify as many as 19 common categories of data types in use. The interrelation among the scenarios and the data types from sensors should assist data researchers in understanding current IoT dynamics.

Keywords

  • Internet of things
  • Data analysis
  • Survey
  • Scenarios
  • Sensors

Introduction - IoT as a paradigm

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a computationally supported information system paradigm [1, 2] that embraces a variety of applications. IoT services differ from other IT-related techniques found in industrial or home office context due to their ubiquitous and embedded characteristics that permeate our daily lives [3]. While the main IoT architecture(s) is still under definition, their underlying paradigm offers the means to gather one or more “things” (sensors, interactive devices, or even complex ones) using well-defined communication interfaces. These can then share data and communicate with the outside world through some specially designed network gateways [4, 5]. The final result is similar to service-oriented architectures that can be subject to service orchestration (e.g., through their APIs). IoT events and information are processed and presented as application output to a human’s interaction or used for autonomic decision. Furthermore, the IoT paradigm allows applications to interact with machines, things, and/or humans through actuators to enforce new control.

A case in point is a farm equipped with soil humidity and temperature sensors. The farmer’s information dashboard may present sensors data in a geographical and analytic way. Knowing the humidity levels, a farmer may decide whether or not to irrigate the soil. This also depends on the type of crops planted. Then, the irrigation actuators can be activated to increase field humidity. The IoT paradigm creates new opportunities for specialized small devices (sensors and actuators) while it also introduces new challenges for the storage and retrieval of large amounts of data and its meaningful visualization [6].

Such hyper-connected information sources often provide a large-scale data offering. This is classified as a Big Data scale problem for storage, retrieval, and analysis [7]. The data analysis aspect is challenged by an intense data input, constant mutation, and complex scenario representation. Other similar large data applications include those in a metropolitan scale [8] such as smart city services, domestic appliances in the context of the smart home [9], and industrial applications [10].

In those applications, the data intensity constraints may vary from within minutes to real time, for each sensor. Accordingly, each scenario demands a different data strategy to deal with the context of each data. The scenario-based architecture analysis (SAAM) is considered quite mature in the software engineering field [11]. Scenarios have been used during system design as a method for comparing design alternatives for development [12]. Some works classify the IoT objects (as in [13, 14]), but this strategy has not been applied to IoT scenarios so far.

The present work aims to help in answering some research questions that may occur to data analysis researchers. We provide the reader with details of the most common emerging IoT scenarios currently found. We explain the way data structures and demand can change from one scenario to the next. A classification of existing sensors ranked in terms of popularity and its application is presented. More importantly, we qualify the different attributes according to usage contexts and provide guidelines for their data analysis [15]. Finally, we provide a technique that binds sensors’ qualification with the scenario’s description in an analytic way.

First, the procedures that were used is this survey are described in the “Methodology” section. After that, the “Analysis” section will present the classifications and categories used by this work. Then, the results are presented, showing the major contributions of this work. At last, the conclusions from this research, some future works, threats to validity, and references are described. To help the keen reader further in exploiting our results, we also provide in the Appendix Appendix 1: List of surveyed papers and classifications section the main raw data of analysis and the identified structures.

Methodology

This work falls into the category of analytic bibliographical research. Three main publishers (namely, ACM, IEEE, and Springer) were considered as part of the main corpus of analysis. The selected time frame is from 2015 to 2016, to show the newest applications and sensors in a closed sample. The initial search query was “Internet of Things” and “Experiment.” The objective was to sample all papers that actually implement a concrete IoT solution, with real sensors in a context or domain. The total number of examined papers reached a staggering 1087. After this first selection, the inclusion and exclusion criteria (described below) were applied to filter out some of the works.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criterion was that any article must have as its focus IoT technology while also presenting an experimental setup or testbed running over real hardware. In addition, the publishing date must fall between the years 2015 and 2016, inclusive.

Exclusion criteria

The papers that did not deploy real sensor(s) in a given application domain were classified as out of the scope of this analysis and removed from our study. We also excluded papers that enhanced one aspect of IoT performance, but lacked an implementation into the considered system. This was the case for example of research describing enhancements made to sensor network communications protocols. A similar strong exclusion criterion regarded works that exclusively used simulation and simulated sensor operation. Note that IoT solutions that process data from a dataset or trace, as opposed to data being gathered by sensors, were also excluded from this sample. Finally, the sample did not include studies published in books and book chapters, concentrating only on scientific articles.

Resulting sample

The final result consisted of 48 articles from the three data sources that satisfied our selection criteria (see Table 1). Although the resulting sample seems reduced, it represents the most relevant papers that have real implementation. This is a tricky point, because the majority of the IoT systems are too complex to be implemented, even in small scale. So, each deployed application should be valued, to further research studies. The actual state of an IoT application is crucial to better understand the complexity of data analysis, visualization, and sensor utilization.
Table 1

Sample distribution by publisher and year

 

2015

2016

Publisher’s total

ACM

5

4

9

IEEE

4

14

18

Springer

7

14

21

Year’s total

16

32

48

Sample’s analysis

The analysis section is split into three parts: scenario, sensors, and application analysis. The first part classifies and qualifies the context of use of IoT solutions. The objective is to understand how each IoT scenario is placed and its idiosyncrasies. Then, the second part of the analysis focuses on the sensors themselves. The main concern is the sensor classification and its application in each case. The last part of the analysis offers the classification of the use of sensors, within a characterized scenario. As an example, a temperature sensor can be used for an agricultural or an e-health application.

Analysis

Scenarios’ variables

A main aspect of the IoT scene is how the context of use and scale can change the data analysis. An IoT application can vary in many aspects. As an example, a smart city and a smart home are both categorized as IoT, but the smart city’s challenges are much more complex and demanding.

The scenario configuration is critical to understand and develop a better data analysis solution. The IEEE’s IoT working group built a platform in an attempt to catalog scenarios1. This scenario catalog is useful, but it does not allow the comparison and inter-relationship among the registered scenarios. Beyond the description of a use case, the scenario analysis can be enhanced if its classification could be analytic. Furthermore, this systematization might also be used by other applications, as in ontology. In this section, the scenario’s characteristics from an IoT implementation are described in an analytic way, to perform comparison and identify possible relations among the scenarios.

Analyzed variables

The IoT scenarios present a complex configuration. The “thing” concept itself is debatable in many works. The variation of what is defined as IoT is huge. An IoT domain may span a single room or an entire city. Also, the quantities of sensors and data upload rates vary in every scenario. Those differences raise the need for identifying and classifying each IoT scenario. We need to identify the similarities and differences among the considered scenarios. For example, one should understand which aspects of a smart city IoT system could show similarity to those from a smart industry. Scenario classification is one of the major contributions of this work and it should advance this topic.

This paper classifies the scenarios using seven variables (see Table 2 for description). Those variables represent the ability to relate to space (mobility, density, and area), people (human interface), and sensors (heterogeneity, intensity, and actuability2).
Table 2

Scenarios’ variable description and quantifier

Variable

Description

Quantifier

Density (DEN)

Density represents the quantity of sensors placed in one area.

When the area has a single sensor, it is classified as “0.” If the area has up to five sensors, it is defined as “1”; over 5 and under 15 sensors, a “2” is allocated, and the density is “3” when there are more than 15 sensors in an area.

Mobility (MOB)

This is the thing’s ability to change location in an area.

“0” is attributed for a static sensor. If the sensor can change its location in a predefined route, it is classified as “1.” When the sensor has the ability to move across areas, it is given a “2.” And in the case of large changes, as in a city scale, it is represented as “3.”

Intensity (INT)

This reflects the sensor’s data refresh rate. A higher refresh rate makes the data register more critical.

Data refresh rate over 5 min are classified as,“0”; between 1 and 5 min as “1”; each minute as “2,” and real-time “3.”

Heterogeneity (HET)

This denotes for the variety of data types and sensors in the context.

Just one sensor with one data type is represented by “0.” A sensor with various data type is classified as “1”; various sensors with one data type are labeled “2,” and various sensors with various data type are classified as “3.”

Area (A)

This is the geographical displacement of the things.

A single room is represented as “0”; a single store building as “1”; more than one store building as “2”; “3” represents a smart city.

Human interface (HI)

This variable registers the degree of interaction of the thing with a human being.

Ranges from “ 0—not related” when the device is independent of human input, “1—weakly related” when the device/thing is used or held by a human, “2—moderately related” when the sensor is a wearable device, or “3—totally related” when it is a direct input interface (neurotransmitter) or implanted chip.

Actuability (ACT)

This represents the capability of a thing in the system to act.

Ranges from “sensor only” (0), “self-acting/self-reconfiguring” (1), “acts in the environment” (2) to “acts on an external thing or human being” (3).

The first group of variables is related to the space dimension of the IoT scenario. One common concern is the spatial distance between nodes and gateways. This aspect is represented by the area variable, which ranges from a single room to a whole city. Along with the spatial distance, the number of items per area, classified as density, is a crucial measure to understand a scenario. A wide area might have only a few sensors in one experiment, but some other experiment might implement a large number of sensors within a small area, as is the case in an industrial application, for example. The last variable related to space is mobility. Mobility is the ability to move in or in-between areas. We observe that these three variables can change according to the application and even within the same application type.

Heterogeneity and intensity are variables directly related to sensors themselves and their displacement. Intensity is the amount of data provided by a sensor in a determined time frame. Higher intensity denotes a more intensive service and demands a better network, storage, and processing infrastructure. Heterogeneity is related to the variety of sensors in the area. Many different sensors demand complex correlations to their values and different strategies to understand data.

The last variables are related to elements outside the IoT sensing and processing domain. The human interface represents the human interaction as data source to the system sensing part. Higher human interface denotes more system dependency on human data to produce information. Actuability is the capability of an IoT system to interact with actuators and interfere with other objects and people. This can happen through a light switch, turning on or off a light, or even an information display to a person (not system user) showing some system status information (e.g., an accident LED display in a smart road). In addition, actuability refers to the capability of the sensor to reconfigure itself, change proprieties, and restart.

Those variables will be invaluable to classify each scenario. In the section describing our results, this classification will be applied to understand and represent each scenario from the sample. In the next section, the sensors’ characteristics will be presented.

Sensors’ analysis

Sensor data is classified according to its application. The initial taxonomy for classification was presented by Harbor Research and Postscapes’ analysis3. Some categories were merged into bigger ones to better understand the scenarios’ characteristics. As an example, the humidity and temperature sensors were joined under the “ambient” sensor type, as both represent a variable that measures something in the environment. The sensors were divided into 14 categories presented below (see Table 3 for a synthesis).
Table 3

Sensors’ classification

Category

Description

Ambient

This refers to sensors that gather data from the environment or the space around them.

Motion

This is used to perceive motion of people or things in a context (as in accelerometers and gyroscopes).

Electric

This category holds the sensors that are applied to electricity grids.

Biosensor

The biosensors are worn by humans or animals. They return vital signs and/or biological information about one subject.

Identification

This represents a semantic or identity of another thing to the IoT system. The most common items in this classification are RFID and NFC tags and their readers.

Position

This is related to identifying an object’s position in a global scale (as with GPS) or in a local scale (as in small beacon position).

Presence

This captures the presence of a person, an animal, or object in a space and registers it in the system. The most common solution is the PIR sensor.

Machine vision

This family of sensors captures images that will be processed by a computer to produce information.

Interaction

These types of sensors are devices that are human-activated to trigger an event, such as a button or a lever.

Acoustic

Such sensors are activated by soundwaves, producing data from the ambient sound change.

Force/load

The force/load sensors are activated by external forces, capturing the deformation or the intensity of those forces to the system.

Hydraulic

These are applied in the water system to measure and control the flow.

Chemical

Chemical sensors are capable of detecting chemical substance(s) in the air or water.

Object information

This specific category includes sensors with similar functions to the previous categories. They differ in that their application is confined to a specific object. The object information is the result of a small context application of a sensor. For instance, a temperature sensor used inside a machine provides object information which is different from an ambient temperature sensor.

The first classification is that of the ambient sensors. This category groups together sensors that monitor an environment’s characteristics and represent them in data. The most common are temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, and humidity sensors. A second group, motion sensors, collect the data from the movement of an entity. Accelerometers and gyroscopes are the main components of this group. In the most modern sensors, the axis varies from 3 up to 9 axes. A third class is the one for electric sensors which monitor information about energy consumption at a place. Those sensors usually are a multivariate data provider that analyzes current, tension, and other electricity-related data. An exception is the capacitance sensor, which might be used for interaction, position, and other applications.

Biosensors collect information from a living being, representing biological data to the system. Electrocardiogram (ECG), electroencephalogram (EEG), heartbeat, and breath sensors are the most common ones found in this category. Object identification sensors and their accessories (e.g., tags or cards) are used to identify an entity to the system. Furthermore, it is possible to store semantic data in the tag, in addition to the offered identification service. Among emerging identification technologies, we list RFID and NFC. Position sensors aggregate the geolocalization or spatial information about an entity. This family of sensors collects the position relative to a reference which can be global, as in the case of GPS, or specific, in an indoor wireless network localization service. This data ranges from simple coordinates to complex collections of data, as with GPS sensors. The most popular sensors used here are GPS, magnetometers, and fixed wireless access points through the processing of received signal strength (RSS) information.

Presence sensors became ubiquitous and very popular in the security context. Their main use is to detect if a person or animal is entering a predetermined area. The passive infrared sensor (PIR) is by far the most common example. More advanced machine vision-based sensors utilize computer-assisted vision to provide data to IoT platforms. The application might then detect movement, persons, or things through the use of image processing techniques. Chief among these sensors is the security cameras (conventional or infrared).

Interaction sensors are small gateways to conscious human interaction. Their objective is to capture human input from the environment and act accordingly. Physical buttons and sliders are examples of this group.

Acoustic sensors are sound-activated devices that gather sound wave data and send this to an application. Microphones and piezoelectric sensors are some examples of devices that perform acoustic sensing. Force/load sensors measure an external force applied to them. Load sensors and speed meter sensors are instances that fall into this category. Hydraulic sensors measure the properties of water and other liquids, including water level and its flow intensity. This group also includes important water quality sensors.

Other environmental sensors include chemical sensors that detect substances in the air. Smoke detector sensors, pH sensors, and gas sensors are further instances. Finally, object information sensors are a specific category of sensors that are devoted to providing information about a single object. Object information is a small part of the context application of a sensor. As an example, an application may prefer using a temperature sensor embedded inside a machine as opposed to relying on an external ambient temperature sensor.

Application analysis

The surveyed papers have also been classified according to their applications, reflecting the IoT system as seen from a consumer point of view. For instance, the case described in the introduction in which soil sensors are being used could then be classified as having a “smart agriculture” application. The categories for this analysis were not known beforehand, they were discovered from mining the sample’s papers. The main concern with those applications is finding a way that relates the sensors and the scenarios with an application. Note that one scenario can have different applications. Similarly, an application may be associated with scenarios with totally different configurations. We contribute by identifying such relationships and formally quantifying them in the section that describes our results.

Results

Our results are divided according to the following three main aspects: applications, scenarios, and sensors. The first one, namely, applications, elicits the classification for each application. Our findings regarding the scenarios summarize the analysis of the context of the “things” and the case variable values. Finally, the main characteristics of Internet of Things are discovered and presented.

Application results

We first built insights reflecting current IoT applications. From the 48 examined research papers, 15 applications were identified and listed in Table 4. Note that smart home is the most common application, followed by smart healthcare and smart city. The four most common applications are two times more popular than the 11 latter cases.
Table 4

Applications found, by the quantity of papers

Application

Papers count

Smart home

11

Smart healthcare

9

Smart city

8

Smart agriculture

4

Smart building

3

Energy monitoring

2

Playful furniture

2

Robot movement

2

Water management

1

Learning device

1

Disaster management

1

Smart vehicle

1

Smart security

1

Personal security

1

Personal information

1

Total

48

In fact, smart healthcare is a special case, as it is part of a home and a business environment (e.g., a hospital). Another notable application is robot movement. The surveyed works showed keen interest in sensor-based autonomic robots and human-controlled robot research using the IoT as an underlying architecture. The smart vehicle application had a low result in our sample. Most of the smart vehicle papers initially gathered adopted simulation to build their testbed and evaluations. This is mostly understandable due to the presence of a number of vehicular network simulators as well as the need to study the large-scale dynamics of traffic and vehicles. We also note some overlaps among the applications as was the case for example with the two applications energy monitoring and smart city. Smart city applications often included energy monitoring but on a city-wide scale. We observe a similar overlap between the IoT applications smart agriculture and water management.

Scenarios patterns

A paper, once analyzed, was evaluated and scored a degree in each of the scenario variables described in “Analyzed variables” section. The final IoT scenario score consists of a string made from the scores’ concatenation of each of the scenario metrics. For example, a scenario that has density = 1, mobility = 3, intensity = 0, heterogeneity = 1, area = 2, human interface = 1, and actuability = 0 will be represented as “1301210.” This notation is important in order to observe if any scenario is equal or close to any other one. Using this coding technique, it is straightforward to compare the distance (consequently also the similarity) between the scores of two scenarios. To achieve this, we simply sum the differences among the scores of each of the final scores. A weighted sum may be used in the future to differentiate among the impacts of these parameters.

Within our sample space, only three patterns of scenarios matched, i.e., scored the same string. Two of them were very simple (mostly composed of zeros) and close to themselves: patterns 0020000 and 0021000, each with two matching cases. There is also one with a complex pattern (1032102) with two matching cases. The other 43 scenarios were unique. However, they obtained very close scores, mostly with a single variable being different. To better understand this issue, a similarity table was built to comprehend how close the different scenarios are to one another.

The similarity table compares the columns (positions) of each scenario pattern (string) to the others. If a variable intensity matches, the scenario has at least one level of similarity. This research represents the level of similarity in percentages. For example, when a comparison has one variable with equal intensity, it is 14.3% similar. On average, the scenarios have at least two variables equal (similarity = 28.6%, see Fig. 1), followed by three variables (similarity = 42.8%), and just one variable (similarity = 14.3%). The pattern with least common variables was “1101133,” with 14 non-matching items. The most approximate pattern is “0020000,” with 5 matches with at least 85.7% similarity. The complete similarity comparison is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Similarity average of the surveyed scenarios. The graphic shows that the majority of scenarios has at least two equal variables (28.6% similar)

Variable and scenario potentiality analysis

An important objective is discovering if each scenario is fully leveraging all the information provided by a variable for an IoT solution. In this section, the potential of each sampled variable will be analyzed, as well as each scenario total. This analysis is valuable to understand the criticality of the IoT solution. The higher average in each variable shows that the variable is present in the sample articles. Higher values in the case potential denote a more intense, data critical, and complex system (with more interaction with other actors).

As defined by the scenarios’ variables, each item can range from 0 to 3 for each analyzed aspect. So, the average of each variable score reflects the variable potentiality. Table 5 represents this data. “Intensity” was the variable most present, followed (by far) by “heterogeneity” and “density”. This intensity data confirms the big data identity of IoT. But some expected values, such as a higher presence of the “area” variable (as in smart cities or smart farms) were not significantly present in the sample. Furthermore, the “human interaction” and “mobility” got the lowest score. This leads us to believe that the IoT applications are mostly configured as a static and human-independent paradigm. The majority of the researched papers do not need human input or human interaction to function.
Table 5

Scenarios’ variable average and percentage of maximum score total from the sample

 

DEN

MOB

INT

HET

A

HI

ACT

Average

1.17

0.85

2.10

1.44

1.00

0.83

1.00

% of the max score

38.10%

27.89%

68.71%

46.94%

28.57%

27.21%

32.65%

Standard deviation

1.17

1.15

1.17

0.97

1.00

1.02

1.38

The scenario potentiality is composed of the sum of the variables’ values, compared to the maximum. As an example, the scenario “2012010” has 6 points in potential (2 + 1 + 2 + 1) or 28.6% of the case potential (the maximum would be 21 points). The majority of the cases’ potential is placed between 40% and 60%, as presented in Table 6. Many cases analyzed in this sample do not show a complex configuration (under 40%). Only one outline case has the potential over 80% (precisely 80.95%).
Table 6

Scenario potential, by quantity

Potential

Quantity

Under 20%

10

Between 20% and 40%

10

Between 40% and 60%

23

Between 60% and 80%

4

Over 80%

1

Total

48

Scenarios’ variables correlation

In this section, the correlation among the scenarios’ variables will be presented. As a first exploratory study of those variables, there is no pre-conceived hypothesis. The main idea is to show the variables’ inter-relations from this sample to be deeply researched and compared in future works.

The most significant correlation happens between density and heterogeneity (as seen on Table 7). These two variables and area seem to have tied correlation, as the three together also correlate (p < 0.5 and p < 0.01). Area and density are expected to be correlated, but the heterogeneity is a new perspective for the sample data. This information presents an IoT important characteristic from the sampled papers: the variability of sensors’ type and the quantity are correlated to the space.
Table 7

Correlation table of the scenarios’ variable

  

DEN

MOB

INT

HET

A

HI

ACT

DEN

Pearson’s r

− 0.140

0.250

0.592***

0.434**

− 0.137

− 0.052

 

p value

0.344

0.086

< 0.001

0.002

0.354

0.723

MOB

Pearson’s r

 

0.059

0.116

0.409**

0.416**

− 0.268

 

p value

 

0.690

0.431

0.004

0.003

0.066

INT

Pearson’s r

  

0.241

0.011

0.086

− 0.092

 

p value

  

0.099

0.939

0.560

0.534

HET

Pearson’s r

   

0.299*

0.011

− 0.207

 

p value

   

0.039

0.942

0.158

A

Pearson’s r

    

− 0.229

− 0.061

 

p value

    

0.117

0.679

HI

Pearson’s r

     

0.030

 

p value

     

0.838

ACT

Pearson’s r

      

 

p value

      

*p <.05,

**p <.01,

***p <.001

      

Mobility and area are also strongly correlated. This is another expected result, as the ability to change places happens in scenarios that support great areas. If the sensors are hard-bounded to an area, the mobility would be low. Mobility is also strongly related to human interface. This is another foreseen result, as the ability to change areas is mostly done by humans. The sensor’s or machine’s movements were not so present in the sample.

Actuability and intensity were poorly correlated variables from this sample. These two variables seem to have a constant value: high values for intensity and low for actuability. Table 5 can help to explain this, as intensity has a higher average and actuability has a small average and greater deviation.

Sensors’ analysis results

In this section, the sensors’ quantity and use will be examined. As presented in Tables 8 and 9, the great majority of the surveyed sensors were from the ambient classification. Temperature, light, and humidity sensors are the most commonly found sensors across our sample, all under the ambient category.
Table 8

Sensor list by quantity

Sensor

Quantity

Temperature

19

Accelerometer

12

Humidity

10

Light sensor

10

RFID

7

PIR

6

Acoustic

5

Camcoder

5

AC analyzer

3

Button

3

ECG

3

Energy consumption

3

Gyroscope

3

Position

3

Chemical detector

2

Current

2

GPS

2

Heartbeat

2

Magnetometer

2

pH

2

Pressure

2

Temperature (object)

2

Tension

2

Various unique sensors4

32

Total

142

Table 9

Sensor quantity, qualified by kind

Sensor type

Quantity

Ambient

47

Motion

18

Electric

13

Biosensor

10

Chemical

9

Position

9

Machine vision

8

Identification

8

Presence

6

Acoustic

5

Interaction

3

Hydraulic

2

Force/load

2

Object information

2

Total

142

The most common temperature sensors are semiconductor sensors and thermocouples. The first is easier and cheaper to build and use. An example would be the TMP35 sensor, which ranges from −70 to +125 C. The latter needs a digital converter but has wider temperature range. The MAX31855 cold-junction compensated thermocouple-to-digital converter, for instance, can handle a thermocouple from −270 to +1800 C.

Humidity is commonly measured relative to ambient temperature (relative humidity will be discussed also in the “Validity threats and restrictions” section). A humidity sensor is usually combined with a temperature sensor (as in the D-Robotics DHT11). There are some absolute humidity sensors, but none were clearly presented in any article in the sample.

Light sensors are present in both indoor and outdoor applications. The most ordinary light sensor consists of a photoresistor (found in the CDS’ photoconductive photocell gl5528). But it also contains some phototransistor components (as in the Vishay’s TEMT6000). Some components can also split the light into the spectrum (red, green, and blue) to analyze color (an example would be SparkFun’s RGB Light Sensor ISL29125).

Accelerometers are popular motion sensors built-in to many devices (as smartwatches or smartphones). Such sensors can also be embedded in small IoT Arduino or Raspberry Pi boards. The most common sensor is a 3-axes sensor, but the most modern ones support up to 9 axes (combined with gyroscope and compass). RFID and NFC are very common in the IoT solutions. They are used under the identification category. The passive infrared sensor (PIR) is an affordable presence sensor encountered in many scenarios. The low cost and ease of use for PIR sensors are reflected by their presence in six scenarios from three applications in the sample.

The electric category unites sensors that get data from the power grid. Energy variables such as tension, current, and energy consumption are some examples of data from this group. Those sensors also might have a characteristic presented in the “Validity threats and restrictions” section, in the form of a validity threat. Beyond the energy measurement, capacitance and soil conductivity were present in the sample. Those sensors are used in user interaction (such as in playful furniture) and smart agriculture, respectively.

From the sample, the Biosensors were well represented. This category does not have just one popular sensor; it has a lot of variety. The most frequent sensors are heart-related, such as in the electrocardiogram (ECG), heartbeat, and blood pressure sensors. But one remarkable one was the electroencephalogram (EEG), which aims to enhance human interaction through brain waves. Another curious finding from Tables 9 and 10 is that the smart healthcare has fewer biosensors than other kinds of sensors. The healthcare application is using motion, identity, ambient, and presence sensors to provide real monitoring for patients or the elderly (see Fig. 3 for a better understanding of this relationship).
Table 10

Total of sensors by each application

Application

Sensors

Smart healthcare

28

Smart home

28

Smart city

23

Smart agriculture

13

Smart building

9

Smart security

8

Personal information

7

Playful furniture

5

Smart vehicle

4

Water management

4

Robot movement

4

Personal security

3

Energy monitoring

2

Learning device

2

Disaster management

2

Total

142

Applications, scenario, and sensor relationship

Once we classified the application, scenarios, and sensor characteristics, we looked into the relationship between them. Figure 2 shows a graph connecting the scenarios with different types of sensors. The graphs from this work were generated using Gephi 0.91 for Linux. The organization layout used was “Force Atlas 2,” with scaling set to 210. The graph is directed. It is composed of 118 nodes and 190 ties, with average degree 3.22. Green nodes depict scenarios, purple nodes represent sensors, and orange nodes are the scenario’s application. The presence of lines connecting a scenario to one or more sensors shows that this scenario uses that sensor.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Applications, scenarios, and sensor graph. Each node represents either a sensor (purple node), a paper’s scenario (green node), or an application (orange node)

As defined by the layout, the more connected nodes are placed in the center of the graph, the lesser the connection on the periphery. When the graph has repeated scenarios, a letter “A” was appended to avoid miss-reference (as in “0021000” and “0021000A,” water management and smart home, with totally different sensors).

The scenario “2133030” is the node with most diversity of sensors (10), followed by “3032203” (8), “2023200,” and “3333320,” both with 7 sensors. Those scenarios’ applications are, respectively, smart healthcare, smart security, smart agriculture, and personal information. From the top application in Table 4, only smart healthcare and smart agriculture match the most sensing scenarios. The scenario potentiality rank was closely related to the quantity of sensor rank, but not defined by it. The potentiality did not correlate to the quantity of sensors, as seen in Table 11.
Table 11

Pearson’s correlation of sensors’ quantity and scenario’s potential

  

Potentiality

Sensor’s variety

Pearson’s r

0.361

 

p value

0.011

There is no significant correlation from the sample

From the sample, 14 scenarios have just one sensor each. The applications with least and most variety of sensors by scenario are described in Table 12. From the top sensing sample, four applications are also in the bottom sample. This table shows that there is no relationship between the variety of sensors and application. The scenario might have only one data source, but still in the same application domain.
Table 12

Applications and scenarios, classified by the most and least variety of sensor

Application

Scenarios

Bottom sample (1 sensors)

 Smart city

3

 Smart healthcare

3

 Energy monitoring

2

 Smart home

2

 Playful furniture

1

 Robot movement

1

 Smart agriculture

1

 Smart building

1

 Total

14

Top sample (> 5 sensors)

 Smart city

2

 Smart healthcare

2

 Personal information

1

 Smart agriculture

1

 Smart building

1

 Smart home

1

 Smart security

1

 Total

7

For further analysis, this graph is available as an interactive HTML5 page generated by the SigmaExporter, from the Oxford Internet Institute. You can explore it in the references of “??” section.

Sensors and applications relationship

In this section, links between sensors and their applications will be identified and depicted. In Fig. 3, an orange node represents an application, a purple one represents a sensor, and a green node represents the sensor’s type. This graph shows the way each sensor is used in the final application and which sensor and sensor’s type are more popular or commonly used in each application. Each line represents a connection between a sensor and an application or a sensor and a sensor’s type. The line’s thickness represents the degree of presence of this sensor in the application. If this number is above 1, it is presented in the middle of the line.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Sensors, sensor’s type, and application graph. Each node represents either a sensor (purple node), an application (orange node), or a sensor’s type (green node). Each application can gather one or more papers from the sample. The line width represents the amount of the sensor in the application. When the presence is over 1, the number of sensor is presented in the middle of the tie

The smart home is the application with the most variety of sensors (18 types), followed by smart healthcare (17 types) and smart city (16 types). From the sample, the smart home and smart healthcare have the same quantity of sensors, as seen in Table 10, but the smart home has more variety. Temperature, humidity, and accelerometer are the most used sensors (respectively 8, 7, and 6 applications), followed by light sensor and RFID. The light sensor is used by smart agriculture, smart city, smart security, smart healthcare, smart home, and personal information applications. RFID is still an important sensor in many application and is more used than the NFC in this sample. The GPS sensor, on the other hand, is only connected to two applications, namely, personal security and smart healthcare. The smart healthcare’s most predominant sensor is the accelerometer. This might be related to the great variety of heart monitoring devices, but it is an interesting fact that a motion sensor is a prominent source of e-health data.

This graph also is available as an interactive HTML5 page. You can explore it in the references of “??” section.

Conclusions and contributions of this work

This work proposes a method to classify and compare IoT scenarios. The authors believe that this is the first time sensor, scenario, and application have been inter-related for IoT systems.The first contribution is the classification scheme presented in the analysis (“Scenarios’ variables” section). This codification will help developers and data analysts to better understand what the characteristics of an IoT application are. Also, developers and/or data analysts can match and compare those codes as a parameter to an existing product.

Our main contribution presents insights from current IoT applications. From the 48 examined research papers, 15 applications were identified. They are listed in Table 4. Note that smart home is the most common application, followed by smart healthcare and smart city. The four most common applications have two times more papers than the 11 latter cases. One interesting fact found from this sample was that there is no relationship between the variety of sensors and applications. The scenario might have only one data source, but still might be in the same application domain.

Another contribution is the discussion of the state-of-the-art of sensors in scientific papers. As presented in Tables 8 and 9, the great majority of the surveyed sensors were from the ambient classification. Temperature, light, and humidity sensors are the most commonly found sensors across our sample, all under the ambient category.

In the future, we may think of code-related templates that would give developers and researchers a jump-start in the design and evaluation of IoT applications. As an example, a developer designing an IoT system for a water metering scenario with the pattern “2012010” may be given references and guidelines on how to achieve their task. The developers may also find out the amount of effort needed to translate the water IoT system to another application (such as electrical) by simply comparing the scenario’s code difference (especially if they have the same or very close pattern code). We believe that the proposed codification scheme facilitates both the understanding and the comparison of IoT applications.

Validity threats and restrictions

The present work has an internal validity threat as presented by [16]. This threat appears from the imprecise presentation of sensors in the papers. In some cases, two data sources (e.g., humidity and temperature sensors) are bundled in the same device. Humidity is commonly measured relative to temperature, so temperature and humidity are measured from the same sensor. But when presented in the paper, some authors from the sample did not specify if the produced data (humidity and temperature) are from one sensing device or two. So, for the sake of precision, those cases were represented as different sensors. The number of those sensors may be higher or lower than the presented number, but without the author’s better specification of the actual instruments used (as a list of sensors used), it is impossible to determine the correct numbers. This phenomenon might happen in the electric sensors (as current, tension, and power consumption might be included in an AC analyzer) and in biosensors (all heart-related sensors might be an ECG). One suggestion to enhance future IoT works is to present a clearly defined section describing the instruments used, in the main text or appendix, describing sensors used, manufacturer, and model. This information would improve the precision of sensors’ variable data types and quantity.

Another threat might have to do with work validation. But, as a first IoT scenario experimental classification, this threat is expected. The classification presented in this work is likely to be expanded, enhanced, be better defined, or changed after the publication. The nature of IoT might demand modifications that could not be predicted at the time of this writing.

The main restriction of this work is the sample’s publisher source quantity. The authors understand that a great variety of sources would provide a better overview of the IoT scenario. But this paper chose a qualitative analysis, so each paper was a semantic trial, to avoid imprecise selection of paper. We invite other authors to apply the same method to other paper sources, in order to complete this overview.

Appendix 1: List of surveyed papers and classifications

Table 13

Complete list of surveyed papers, with scenario code and application classification

Paper

Application

Scenario

Paper

Application

Scenario

[18]

Smart agriculture

0000000

[19]

Smart home

1032102A

[20]

Smart home

0000103

[21]

Smart home

1101133

[22]

Smart home

0011010

[23]

Smart home

1132020

[24]

Smart building

0020000

[25]

Smart building

1132110

[26]

Smart agriculture

0020000A

[27]

Smart home

1232120

[28]

Water management

0021000

[29]

Disaster management

1301210

[30]

Smart home

0021000A

[31]

Smart vehicle

1332300

[32]

Energy monitoring

0030000

[33]

Playful furniture

2012010

[34]

Energy monitoring

0031000

[35]

Smart agriculture

2023200

[36]

Smart home

0101003

[37]

Smart city

2030103

[38]

Playful furniture

0101123

[39]

Smart city

2032013

[40]

Smart healthcare

0130030

[41]

Smart healthcare

2033020

[42]

Smart healthcare

0131113

[43]

Robot movement

2130033

[44]

Learning device

0230023

[45]

Smart healthcare

2133030

[46]

Smart healthcare

0231020

[47]

Smart building

3001200

[48]

Smart healthcare

0312020

[49]

Smart home

3022103

[50]

Smart healthcare

0321210

[51]

Smart city

3032100

[52]

Smart healthcare

0322310

[53]

Robot movement

3032200

[54]

Smart healthcare

0331020

[55]

Smart security

3032203

[56]

Smart home

1002013

[57]

Smart city

3032213

[58]

Smart home

1002100

[59]

Smart city

3033000

[60]

Smart city

1020202

[61]

Smart city

3233200

[62]

Smart agriculture

1032003

[63]

Personal security

3322300

[64]

Smart city

1032102

[65]

Personal information

3333320

Appendix 2: List of sensors from the sample

Table 14

List of all sensors found in the sample

Sensor

Type

Quantity

Sensor

Type

Quantity

Temperature

Ambient

19

Degree of cloudness

Ambient

1

Accelerometer

Motion

12

Direction

Position

1

Humidity

Ambient

10

Discomfort index

Biosensor

1

Light sensor

Ambient

10

EEG

Biosensor

1

RFID

Identification

7

Electrical conductivity

Electric

1

PIR

Presence

6

Float sensor

Hydraulic

1

Acoustic

Acoustic

5

Flow sensor

Hydraulic

1

Camcoder

Machine vision

5

IR camcoder

Machine vision

1

AC analyzer

Electric

3

Lane perception

Machine vision

1

Button

Interaction

3

Laser scanner

Motion

1

ECG

Biosensor

3

Load sensor

Force/load

1

Energy consumption

Electric

3

NFC

Identification

1

Gyroscope

Motion

3

ORP

Chemical

1

Position sensor

Position

3

Proximity sensor

Motion

1

Chemical detector

Chemical

2

Smoke sensor

Chemical

1

Current

Electric

2

Soil conductivity

Electric

1

GPS

Position

2

Soil humidity

Ambient

1

Heartbeat

Biosensor

2

Soil microorganism

Ambient

1

Magnetometer

Position

2

Soil temperature

Ambient

1

pH

Chemical

2

Solar irradiation index

Ambient

1

Pressure

Ambient

2

Speed

Force/load

1

Temperature (object)

Object information

2

Swallow sensor

Biosensor

1

Tension

Electric

2

Thermal camera

Machine vision

1

Blood pressure

Biosensor

1

Tilt sensor

Motion

1

Breath sensor

Biosensor

1

Ultrasonic sensor

Position

1

Capacitance

Electric

1

Water oxygen

Chemical

1

CO2

Chemical

1

Water quality

Chemical

1

   

Wind velocity

Force/load

1

    

Total

142

Footnotes
2

The concept of actuability is close to the one defined in [17], but extended beyond the motion ability of motors. In this work, actuability is seen as the capability of a thing or a system to act on someone/something else.

 
4

Presented individually in Appendix Appendix 2: List of sensors from the sample

 

Notes

Abbreviations

ACM: 

Association for Computing Machinery

API: 

Application programming interface

ECG: 

Electrocardiogram

EEG: 

Electroencephalogram

GPS: 

Global positioning system

IEEE: 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IoT: 

Internet of things

NFC: 

Near field communication

ORP: 

Oxidation reduction potential

pH: 

Potential of hydrogen RFID: Radio frequency identification

SAAM: 

Scenario-based architecture analysis

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Cleber Morais would like to thank the Federal University of Paraíba for supporting his doctoral research.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

∙ Interactive graph 1: http://codethe.net/app_scn_sen/.

∙ Interactive graph 2: http://codethe.net/app_sen_typ/

Note: The exporter redraw the network, so the layout might be different from the version presented in the static figures. But both are from the same Gephi’s dataset.

Authors’ contributions

All authors have contributed to the methodological and research aspects of the research. The authors have also read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
GPRT Lab, Federal University of Pernambuco, DINE Bulding, 1st floor Prof. Moraes Rego avenue, Cidade Universitária, Recife/Pernambuco, Brazil
(2)
Digital Media Department, Federal University of Paraíba, Demid building, Campus I, João Pessoa, João Pessoa/Paraíba, 58051-900, Brazil

References

  1. Raiwani Y (2013) Internet of things: a new paradigm. Int J Sci Res Publ 3(4):323–326.Google Scholar
  2. Gubbi J, Buyya R, Marusic S, Palaniswami M (2013) Internet of things (iot): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Futur Gener Comput Syst 29(7):1645–1660.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Mohammed FH, Esmail R (2015) Survey on iot services: classifications and applications. Int J Sci Res 4:2124–7.Google Scholar
  4. Chen H, Jia X, Li H (2011) A brief introduction to IoT gateway In: IET International Conference on Communication Technology and Application (ICCTA 2011), 610–613.. IET, Beijing. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2011.0740. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6192937&isnumber=6192814.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Zachariah T, Klugman N, Campbell B, Adkins J, Jackson N, Dutta P (2015) The internet of things has a gateway problem In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, HotMobile ’15, 27–32.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699343.2699344. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2699343.2699344.Google Scholar
  6. Chen F, Deng P, Wan J, Zhang D, Vasilakos AV, Rong X (2015) Data mining for the internet of things: literature review and challenges. Int J Distrib Sensor Networks 11:14.Google Scholar
  7. Zaslavsky A, Perera C, Georgakopoulos D (2013) Sensing as a service and big data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.0159.Google Scholar
  8. Bakıcı T, Almirall E, Wareham J (2013) A smart city initiative: the case of barcelona. J Knowl Econ 4(2):135–148.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Darianian M, Michael MP (2008) Smart Home Mobile RFID-Based Internet-of-Things Systems and Services In: 2008 International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering, Phuket, 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACTE.2008.180. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4736933&isnumber=4736904.
  10. Karakostas B (2013) A dns architecture for the internet of things: a case study in transport logistics. Procedia Comput Sci 19:594–601.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Babar MA, Zhu L, Jeffery R (2004) A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods In: 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference. Proceedings., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 309–318. https:/doi.org/10.1109/ASWEC.2004.1290484. https:/doi.org/10.1109/ASWEC.2004.1290484. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1290484&isnumber=28748.
  12. Kazman R, Abowd G, Bass L, Clements P (1996) Scenario-based analysis of software architecture. IEEE Softw 13(6):47–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Thoma M, Meyer S, Sperner K, Meissner S, Braun T (2012) On IoT-services: Survey, Classification and Enterprise Integration In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications, Besancon, 257–260. https://doi.org/10.1109/GreenCom.2012.47. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6468323&isnumber=6468287.
  14. Mahalle PN, Prasad NR, Prasad R (2013) Object classification based context management for identity management in internet of things. Int J Comput Appl 63(12):1–6.Google Scholar
  15. Tory M, Moller T (2004) Rethinking Visualization: A High-Level Taxonomy In: IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, Austin, TX, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2004.59. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1382903&isnumber=30135.
  16. Easterbrook S, Singer J, Storey MA, Damian D (2008) Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjøberg DIK (eds)Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, 285–311.. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Bergerman M, Lee C, Xu Y (1995) Dynamic coupling of underactuated manipulators In: Proceedings of International Conference on Control Applications, Albany, NY, USA, 500–505. https:/doi.org/10.1109/CCA.1995.555771. https:/doi.org/10.1109/CCA.1995.555771. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=555771&isnumber=12105.
  18. Torres A, Santos M, Balula S, Fortunato J, Fernandes H (2016) Turning the internet of (my) things into a remote controlled laboratory In: 2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), Madrid, 371–374. https://doi.org/10.1109/REV.2016.7444505. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7444505&isnumber=7444420.
  19. Saha A, Kuzlu M, Pipattanasomporn M, Rahman S (2016) Enabling residential demand response applications with a zigbee-based load controller system. Intell Ind Syst 2(4):303–318.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark M, Dutta P (2015) The haunted house: networking smart homes to enable casual long-distance social interactions In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Workshop on Internet of Things Towards Applications, IoT-App ’15, 23–28.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2820975.2820976. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2820975.2820976.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Mennicken S, Zihler O, Juldaschewa F, Molnar V, Aggeler D, Huang EM (2016) “It’s Like Living with a Friendly Stranger”: Perceptions of Personality Traits in a Smart Home In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’16, 120–131.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971757. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2971648.2971757.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Yu J, Bang HC, Lee H, Lee YS (2016) Adaptive internet of things and web of things convergence platform for internet of reality services. J Supercomput 72(1):84–102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Cicirelli F, Fortino G, Giordano A, Guerrieri A, Spezzano G, Vinci A (2016) On the design of smart homes: A framework for activity recognition in home environment. J Med Syst 40(9):200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Conti M, Nati M, Rotundo E, Spolaor R (2016) Mind the plug! laptop-user recognition through power consumption In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security, IoTPTS ’16, 37–44.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899007.2899009. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2899007.2899009.Google Scholar
  25. Huang H, Zhou J, Li W, Zhang J, Zhang X, Hou G (2016) Wearable indoor localisation approach in internet of things. IET Networks 5(5):122–126.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuo Y, Li C (2016) Design of long range low power sensor node for the last mile of IoT In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan (ICCE-TW), Nantou, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE-TW.2016.7520961. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7520961&isnumber=7520694.
  27. Amroun H, Ouarti N, Ammi M (2016) Recognition of human activity using Internet of Things in a non-controlled environment In: 2016 14th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), Phuket, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARCV.2016.7838750. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7838750&isnumber=7838559.
  28. Anjana S, Sahana MN, Ankith S, Natarajan K, Shobha KR, Paventhan A (2015) An IoT based 6LoWPAN enabled experiment for water management In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommuncations Systems (ANTS), Kolkata, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ANTS.2015.7413654. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7413654&isnumber=7413598.
  29. Vojtech L, Nerada M, Hrad J, Bortel R (2015) Outdoor localization technique using active RFID technology aimed for security and disaster management applications In: Proceedings of the 2015 16th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), Szilvasvarad, 586–589. https://doi.org/10.1109/CarpathianCC.2015.7145148. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7145148&isnumber=7145033.
  30. Ray PP (2016) An Internet of Things based approach to thermal comfort measurement and monitoring In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCS.2016.7586398. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7586398&isnumber=7586284.
  31. Malekian R, Kavishe A, Maharaj B, Gupta P, Singh G, Waschefort H (2016) Smart vehicle navigation system using hidden markov model and rfid technology. Wirel Pers Commun 90(4):1717–1742.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim J, Jeon Y, Kim H (2016) The intelligent iot common service platform architecture and service implementation. J Supercomput 90:1–19.Google Scholar
  33. Gallacher S, Golsteijn C, Wall L, Koeman L, Andberg S, Capra L, Rogers Y (2015) Getting quizzical about physical: observing experiences with a tangible questionnaire In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’15, 263–273.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2807529. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2750858.2807529.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Villanueva MLG, Dumlao SMG, Reyes RSJ (2016) Appliance recognition system for ILM using AGILASx Ů Dataset of common appliances in the Philippines In: 2016 Cloudification of the Internet of Things (CIoT), Paris, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIOT.2016.7872910. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7872910&isnumber=7872907.
  35. Wang J, Duan S, Shi Y (2015) Multi-objects scalable coordinated learning in internet of things. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(7):1133–1144.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Cho H, Park S, Jeong S, Kim KJ, Shin D-H, Kim H (2015) User identity in the internet of things: effects of self-extension and message framing on object attachment In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, UbiComp/ISWC’15 Adjunct, 137–140.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2800891. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2800835.2800891.Google Scholar
  37. Luo J, Wu D, Pan C, Zha J (2015) Optimal energy strategy for node selection and data relay in wsn-based iot. Mob Networks Appl 20(2):169–180.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Nummenmaa T, Tyni H, Kultima A, Alha K, Holopainen J (2015) Need to touch, wonder of discovery, and social capital: experiences with interactive playful seats In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACE ’15, 10:1–10:12.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2832959. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2832932.2832959.Google Scholar
  39. Paredes P, Ko R, Calle-Ortiz E, Canny J, Hartmann B, Niemeyer G (2016) Fiat-lux: Interactive urban lights for combining positive emotion and efficiency In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, DIS ’16, 785–795.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901832. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2901790.2901832.Google Scholar
  40. Yang Z, Zhou Q, Lei L, Zheng K, Xiang W (2016) An iot-cloud based wearable ecg monitoring system for smart healthcare. J Med Syst 40(12):286.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Stavropoulos TG, Meditskos G, Andreadis S, Avgerinakis K, Adam K, Kompatsiaris I (2016) Semantic event fusion of computer vision and ambient sensor data for activity recognition to support dementia care. J Ambient Intell Humanized Comput 7:1–16.Google Scholar
  42. Ma Y, Zhang Y, Wan J, Zhang D, Pan N (2015) Robot and cloud-assisted multi-modal healthcare system. Clust Comput 18(3):1295–1306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Muztoba Md, Gupta U, Mustofa T, Ogras UY (2015) Robust Communication with IoT Devices Using Wearable Brain Machine Interfaces In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ICCAD ’15, 200–207.. IEEE Press, Piscataway. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2840819.2840849.Google Scholar
  44. Umek A, Tomažič S, Kos A (2015) Wearable training system with real-time biofeedback and gesture user interface. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(7):989–998.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Bhatia M, Sood SK (2016) Temporal informative analysis in smart-icu monitoring: m-healthcare perspective. J Med Syst 40(8):1–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Iakovakis D, Hadjileontiadis L (2016) Standing hypotension prediction based on smartwatch heart rate variability data: a novel approach In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, MobileHCI ’16, 1109–1112.. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2970370. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2957265.2970370.Google Scholar
  47. Yu J, Kim M, Bang HC, Bae SH, Kim SJ (2016) Iot as a applications: cloud-based building management systems for the internet of things. Multimed Tools Appl 75(22):14583–14596.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Perez MN, Mata FJ, Rodriguez VM, Zhang S (2015) Pervasive healthcare monitoring system In: 2015 IEEE 12th Intl Conf on Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing and 2015 IEEE 12th Intl Conf on Autonomic and Trusted Computing and 2015 IEEE 15th Intl Conf on Scalable Computing and Communications and Its Associated Workshops (UIC-ATC-ScalCom)(UIC-ATC-SCALCOM), Beijing, China, 1712–1716. https://doi.org/10.1109/UIC-ATC-ScalCom-CBDCom-IoP.2015.311.
  49. Preuveneers D, Joosen W (2016) Semantic analysis and verification of context-driven adaptive applications in intelligent environments. J Reliab Intell Environ 2(2):53–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Chen Y, Zhou J, Guo M (2016) A context-aware search system for internet of things based on hierarchical context model. Telecommun Syst 62(1):77–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsaramirsis G, Karamitsos I, Apostolopoulos C (2016) Smart parking: An IoT application for smart city In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), New Delhi, 1412–1416. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7724497&isnumber=7724213.
  52. Ahmad M, Amin MB, Hussain S, Kang BH, Cheong T, Lee S (2016) Health fog: A novel framework for health and wellness applications. J Supercomput 72(10):3677–3695.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Adjih C, et al. (2015) FIT IoT-LAB: A large scale open experimental IoT testbed In: 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Milan, 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1109/WF-IoT.2015.7389098. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7389098&isnumber=7389012.
  54. Zhou Y, Cheng Z, Jing L, Hasegawa T (2015) Towards unobtrusive detection and realistic attribute analysis of daily activity sequences using a finger-worn device. Appl Intell 43(2):386–396.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Hou SL, Zhao S, Cheng B, Cheng Y, Chen J (2016) Fragmentation and Optimal Deployment for IoT-Aware Business Process In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC), San Francisco, CA, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCC.2016.91. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7557511&isnumber=7557418.
  56. Vania KK, Nugroho IHT (2016) Smart dog feeder design using wireless communication, MQTT and Android client In: 2016 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and its Applications (IC3INA), Tangerang, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3INA.2016.7863048. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7863048&isnumber=7862985.
  57. Tsai MF, Kiong YC, Sinn A (2016) Smart service relying on internet of things technology in parking systems. J Supercomput:1–24.Google Scholar
  58. Wagle S (2016) Semantic data extraction over MQTT for IoTcentric wireless sensor networks In: 2016 International Conference on Internet of Things and Applications (IOTA), Pune, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOTA.2016.7562727. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7562727&isnumber=7562684.
  59. Wang J, Kuang Q, Duan S (2015) A new online anomaly learning and detection for large-scale service of internet of thing. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(7):1021–1031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Mahalank SN, Malagund KB, Banakar RM (2016) Device to device interaction analysis in IoT based Smart Traffic Management System: An experimental approach In: 2016 Symposium on Colossal Data Analysis and Networking (CDAN), Indore, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDAN.2016.7570909. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7570909&isnumber=7570858.
  61. Wu H, Cao J, Fan X (2016) Dynamic collaborative in-network event detection in wireless sensor networks. Telecommun Syst 62(1):43–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Yolanda D, Hindersah H, Hadiatna F, Triawan MA (2016) Implementation of Real-Time Fuzzy logic control for NFT-based hydroponic system on Internet of Things environment In: 2016 6th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), Bandung, 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEngT.2016.7849641. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7849641&isnumber=7849606.
  63. Jutila M, Strömmer E, Ervasti M, Hillukkala M, Karhula P, Laitakari J (2015) Safety services for children: a wearable sensor vest with wireless charging. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(5-6):915–927.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. OŻadowicz A, Grela J (2017) Energy saving in the street lighting control system–a new approach based on the en-15232 standard. Energy Efficiency 10(3):563–576.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilhelm E, Siby S, Zhou Y, Ashok XJS, Jayasuriya M, Foong S, Kee J, Wood KL, Tippenhauer NO (2016) Wearable environmental sensors and infrastructure for mobile large-scale urban deployment. IEEE Sensors J 16(22):8111–8123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement